One thing we touched on briefly in class last time was the issue of narrative across a major franchise. In class, we were discussing the Matrix series, but I think the same issues come up when considering the Pirates of the Caribbean movies or the Star Wars trilogies. I think that it’s safe to say that most people view the later films in these series as let-downs, or at best good, but problematic.

So what’s the problem? I think a big issue here is expectations, a pretty crucial element of a film’s paratext. People grew up with Star Wars, or loved the original Matrix and Pirates, and go into the new movies with certain assumptions about what sort of a film they’ll be seeing. If the film isn’t what they expected, because the level of quality has fallen off, or even just if the director’s taken it in a different direction, it might invite (unfair) comparisons to the original.

And sometimes, these films can look much better in hindsight. I have heard from several people that the Matrix sequels are much better once you know what to expect.

Another obvious problem these films can face is the lag-time between the making of the beloved original and the sequels. In two of these instances, Star Wars and The Matrix, the creators claim that they had had the ideas for the sequels for years. Whether or not I really believe Lucas or the Wachowski brothers is another matter. However, it would have been pretty much entirely impossible for the success of the originals not to affect the making of the sequels. The Wachowski brothers may have had ideas for what they wanted to do in later movies, but the Matrix had become a very hot commodity by the time they could make more movies, and they certainly had to adjust some of their ideas, either to appease fans who want a particular kind of film from the Matrix series, or corporate concerns that have specific visions of how the Matrix should be branded.

Then there’s something like Pirates of the Caribbean, which started out as a stand-alone film. Then, when it became a smash hit, the creators had to turn it into a franchise. The most obvious complaint one could level against the second film is that it spends too much time setting up for the third. It is a problem, because the entire film’s narrative gets subverted to sell the sequel. Another similar situation would be the Back to the Future movies. Both series started with an initially stand-alone film that became a success, spawning a pair of sequels that were released back-to-back.

Another big problem, particularly for the Star Wars film, is the creator’s ego. I wholeheartedly believe that the worst part of the prequel trilogy is that George Lucas was given too much creative freedom. After the original Star Wars films, Lucas could do pretty much anything he wanted, and wasn’t going to be questioned. Personally, I’m of the opinion that the weakest of the original trilogy is Episode 4; perhaps, not coincidentally, this is the only one of the originals that Lucas wrote and directed. The later films benefitted from creative input from other individuals. Considering how unpopular the prequels are with many (at times former) Star Wars fans, it’s clear that Lucas’ conception of what Star Wars should be does not gel with everyone else’s. Perhaps if there had been more people questioning his decisions and making their own suggestions while the prequel films were being made, they would have been better.

Of course, I’m pretty much just speculating on the creative process involved in the making of the prequel trilogy, and making assumptions that Lucas is a crazy-man who shouldn’t be trusted with his own franchise anymore. To be perfectly honest, I’m looking forward to the day Lucas dies, or at least gives up creative control of the Star Wars franchise. Maybe then, we can get something like what happened in the Star Trek franchise, where the best series, Deep Space 9, was made once Roddenberry was no longer the guiding force of the franchise.

Of course, it all went to hell with Voyager and Enterprise. God, I hope J.J. Abrams can revive Star Trek.